First laid out in the early 1960s, North Shores has a
longstanding reputation as a place for the very well-to-do to enjoy the
Delaware Beaches.

The Board of Governors for the community also has an
equally longstanding reputation of doing what it can to preserve the private
property rights of the folks who own a beach place there. These efforts
include significant parking restrictions throughout the community, and
vigorous efforts to keep their private oceanfront beach free of the
footprints of those who do not own North Shores property.

Apparently that exclusionary attitude is not enough for
some members of that community.

In
Schneiderman et al. v. North Shores Board of Governors, Inc., a group of
oceanfront property owners in North Shores are suing to block the use of
dune crossings that the rest of the community uses to reach the beach. Among
other allegations, they claim that these crossings could not be built
without their approval, and they do not approve.

The dune crossings are about ten feet wide. Each one
has a small wooden boardwalk to take North Shores owners and their guests
across the dune line to the private beach.

These crossings are not that much to look at--here are
photos of the crossings at Ocean Drive and Cedar, Holly, and Farview Roads.

Farview Crossing

Holly Crossing

Cedar Crossing

According to the complaint filed in this case, however,
these crossings are a real nuisance.

People using the crossing "talk to one another"
while making the short hike to the beach, and some of these people also
"gawk" at the oceanfront homes adjacent to the
crossings. Furthermore, on some occasions folks allegedly hurt themselves
while walking through these crossings, and then have the effrontery to
"request aid" from the plaintiffs.

The horror.

As noted above, the oceanfront owners alleged that
their right to veto any construction on the North Shores beach extended to
these dune crossings.

Chancery Court Master Sam Glasscock disagreed:

The beach-front property owners have a right to veto
construction only in that area, the Private Beach, over which an easement
was conveyed in favor of the North Shores lot owners in the Deed of
Easement....

Nothing in the plot plan and, most importantly, nothing in
the Deed of Easement, indicates that the North Shores Private Beach area
includes the alleyways over which the defendant has now built dune
crossings....

If the right to veto any construction on the beach
extended to dune crossings in the alleyways, the beach-front owners would
have the right to frustrate access to the beach for all non-beach-front
residents of North Shores.

Therefore, Master Glasscock dismissed the property
claim element of this lawsuit. As for the nuisance claims, however, the case
is still alive:

The complaint alleges that, because of the method of
construction and the height of the dune crossings, and their proximity to
plaintiffs' houses, they represent an unreasonable risk of property damage
to the plaintiffs' properties in any storm. This leaves a factual issue
which may well be the appropriate subject of a motion for summary
judgment, but which cannot be resolved at this stage of the proceedings.
Because this issue of fact precludes dismissal of the nuisance claim, I
need not consider whether the plaintiffs state an actionable claim by
alleging that the crossovers attract beachgoers whose "talking and
gawking" disturbs the plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of their properties. Nor
do I need to determine whether a claim that the pleas for help of alleged
injured elderly beachgoers constitutes an unreasonable interference with
plaintiffs quiet enjoyment sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Since discovery must go forward on the nuisance claim in any event, I
leave the entire claim to be disposed of by motion for summary judgment or
after trial.

If I had to guess, however, I would think that those
not very neighborly elements of the Plaintiffs' claims will not be
sufficient to meet their goals.

"Collapse" outlines the history of several failed
civilizations, including the Maya, Easter Islander, and the Norse Greenland
colony. It then draws several potential lessons for today from those
eventually bitter experiences.

I might quibble about some of what he argues about how
a civilization can cause itself significant troubles, but the following
passage seemed remarkably apropos of the current discussion over health care
reform:

A further conflict of interest involving rational behavior arises when the
interests of the decision-making elite in power clash with the interests of
the rest of society. Especially if the elite can insulate themselves from
the consequences of their actions, they are likely to do things that profit
themselves, regardless of whether those actions hurt everybody else. Such
clashes ... are becoming increasingly frequent in the modern U.S. ....

Throughout recorded history, actions or inactions by self-absorbed kings,
chiefs, and politicians have been a regular cause of societal collapses....

Conversely, failures to solve perceived problems because of conflicts of
interest between the elite and the masses are much less likely in societies
where the elite cannot insulate themselves from the consequences of their
actions.

This risk of committing the sin of exclusion was not
lost on James Madison, who wrote this passage about the House of
Representatives while arguing for the adoption of the Constitution, in
Federalist No. 57:

they can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.
This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human
policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between
them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few
governments have furnished examples; but without which every government
degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked,

what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal
discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the
society?
I answer:
the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional
laws; and above all,
the vigilant
and manly
spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes
freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not
obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will
be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

I put in bold the part of this excerpt that should be
kept foremost in mind in thinking about health care reform, or any other
massive Federal attempts at change.

Vigilance by the governed is the best possible source
of protection from those doing the governing.

Revamping the home office has been on our schedule of
fun things to do for a long while.

It was tops on the list, in fact, except for everything
else we could think of doing instead.

Nonetheless, late this summer and early fall, we began
the tortuous process of moving hundreds of books, recycling a few reams of
no-longer-needed papers, going to furniture stores, and debating the merits
of paint chips with names like
Romance, or
Stone 2.

I didn't see what Stone 1 looked like, but Stone 2 worked
out well as the final selection.

During the book-moving part of the makeover, my wife
asked me for a recommendation among those on the shelves. She was looking
for a book that was different from her usual preferences.

I mentioned something, and she began to look over the
shelves that held the books that were mostly mine.

As she studied the options, she became, as they say, a
bit animated about the overall scope of the non-fiction, non-golf
selections. She re-discovered that my reading interests are a mite bit
severe, when viewed from one perspective.

With the office now finished, we put these particular
books on a shelf, which we've now named the Mister Happy Collection.

A new controversy that potentially implicated my
writings on this blog and my golf-related
website helped spur me to begin
posting again here, after a work- and family-related hiatus.

It's about freebies and such.

I made it the subject of the main part of my weekly
golf column this week, which is reprinted here below, but with hyperlinks
added.

Hope you like it:

Several years ago a golf
equipment company asked me if I would conduct a product review for one of
their golf bags. They would send me the bag; I would try it and write
about it; and then, I could keep the bag for my personal use.

I talked with Dennis Forney, the
publisher of this fine newspaper,
about their request. Forney’s position was straightforward, as he always
is whenever we chat—I could accept the freebie, as long as I was honest in
my assessment about it.

The equipment folks sent me the
bag, and it was eventually the subject of a column that ran in this paper
and on my golf website. I liked it but I didn’t love it, and that
evaluation should be pretty clear to anyone who reads the review.

Since that time, I have had the
occasional freebie or two in other golf-related contexts, such as a hybrid
club or a round of golf at a Cape Region golf course that wanted me to
write about the playing experience.

Again, there was no editorial
control over the results of those experiences, other than my own
requirement to write an honest assessment, as Forney suggested.

This issue came up again
recently, thanks to a remarkable set of
proposed guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC suggested that bloggers
and others should openly disclose any such freebie reviews or paid
endorsements, apparently to make sure their readers understand the
potential motivations of the writers. The question of actual motive,
however, could be left to the tender mercies of the federal government to
decide.

The Commission appears to be
trying to do something about advertising that is “masquerading as bona
fide endorsements,” according to the
New York Times, a publication with its own issues about public
relations and news content.

Lots of bloggers are
up in arms about the proposal, however, not least of which because of
the daunting prospect of dealing with an official FTC investigation.

The FTC says their rules are
aimed at nontraditional media such as the blogging community, but one has
to wonder why they are not so worried about more traditional media
outlets, such as this newspaper. After all, review copies of new books,
screener copies of new DVDs, and other products and services are not the
sole review domains of bleary-eyed bloggers.

Out of an excess of caution,
therefore, let me be as clear as possible.

I review golf books and other
items that are sent to me, as part of this column. I do not receive any
direct payment for these reviews, other than the chance to keep the stuff.

If someone goes to my website
and orders a book I reviewed through my association with Amazon.com, I
earn a tiny percentage of the sale. It’s certainly not enough to change my
mind about the merits of these books. As for other products and services I
review, you will be the first to know if these were freebies, because I
make a point of telling you about that fact in the same column.

I rode down to Bear Trap Dunes
Golf Club on the day after Christmas to join local PGA pro Devon
Peterson and a crowd of fellow members of Shawnee Country Club, for an
outing at the popular Ocean View public golf course.
More..

We saw Sean Penn’sMilkon New Year’s Eve, and were both deeply impressed.

I appreciated the fact that the
movie does not seek to canonize San Francisco’s first openly gay city
supervisor, but instead presents a well-balanced portrait of the man, his
city, and his times.

When the movie was first announced
in the general media, my initial impression was to wonder why it hadn’t been
made before now, as the story of his rise to prominence and murder is such
an obvious choice for a good movie.

Now that I’ve seen it, however, I
think the passage of years perhaps helped. If anything, it may have acted as
a deterrent against making a two-dimensional movie suggesting this skilled
politician was a pure-hearted victim of a vicious homophobe, his assassin
Dan White. Both men deserved far more than that, as this movie shows with
some empathy.

I would have liked to have seen
more in the movie about
George Moscone, the Mayor whom White also shot and killed, but there was
already so much else to be covered that it probably just couldn’t fit.

Milk well
deserves the Oscar buzz it’s now receiving. I wouldn’t be surprised if it
picked up one or two little statuettes later this year, for Penn and perhaps
the screenwriter/executive producer, Dustin Lance Black.

The current administration is
taking several steps to reduce costs and otherwise try to meet a
steadily-declining budget target.

These include the recent issuance
of a stern edict that all state offices shall have their thermostats set at
no more than 68 degrees in winter.

In addition, support services
staff are expected to check around for space heaters and similar cheating
devices.

All well and good, I suppose,
except that the office building in which I work dates back to the late
60s/early 70s, when American architects apparently considered the East
German government as their muse. A single large pane of un-insulated glass
helps produce a nice cold draft in my office, while the heating unit under
the window remains turned off, to help maintain the average 68 throughout
the building.

After a few days of this,
especially on returning to work on Monday when the heat's been set even
lower on the weekend, I had to do something.

So I went to
Marshall's and found a
Calvin Klein
zippered sweater vest for only $19.99, marked down from its original alleged
market value of $94.

The sweater takes the edge off
the chill, but it has another effect I hadn't expected.

The new daily ritual of putting
on this vest each morning means that I have now become
Mr. Rogers.

Isn't that special?

Sure it is.

Thanks to the thousands of film
buffs who attended the
Rehoboth Beach
Independent Film Festival
November 11-15, 2009

"All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue,
and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. ... Man acts
from motives relative to his interests; and not on metaphysical
speculations."

1770 - from On the Causes of the Present Discontents

"There is no
safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men."

"First, the role of the federal
government is limited to the powers given to it in the Constitution.
Second, a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it,
unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better.
Third, we don't spend money we don't have, or borrow money that our
children and grandchildren will have to pay back.
And the best way to avoid war is to be stronger than our enemies. But
if we’re caught in a fight, we need to win it because not doing so makes
us much more likely to be attacked in the future.
Also the federal judiciary is supposed to decide cases, not set social
policy -- and bad social policy at that.
And the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our
lives."